1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />under the deferential scope of review we must apply to a governing body's code <br />interpretation under ORS 197.829(1).11 <br />The fact remains that nothing in CDC 9.1010 compels the applicant for a tree removal <br />permit necessary to site roads and utilities for a proposed PUD or subdivision to take into <br />account trees that may, have to be removed in subsequent development applications to site <br />and build houses on individual lots on that same property. Because it is difficult if =not <br />impossible in the context of PUD approval to determine which trees and how many trees will <br />be removed when individual PUD lots are developed, such a requirement would be <br />unworkable, even if there were a basis in the code for an implicit requirement to that effect. <br />The .city's code interpretation declining to infer such a code requirement is well within the <br />city's interpretative discretion under ORS 197.829(1). <br />The second assignment of error is denied. <br />The city's decision is affumed. <br />11 ORS 197.829(1) provides, in relevant part: <br />".[LUBA] shall affirm a local government's interpretation of its comprehensive plan and land <br />use regulations, unless the board determines that the local government's interpretation: <br />"(a) Is inconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan or land use <br />regulation; <br />"(b) Is inconsistent with the purpose for the comprehensive plan or land use regulation; <br />"(c) Is inconsistent with the underlying policy that provides the basis for the <br />comprehensive plan or land use regulation[.]" <br />Page 15 <br />0- <br />0 L'I <br />706 <br />